crazyhorse1 wrote:Are you suggesting that the Bible is not the "living" word of God? Oh, my. Maybe it's just a collection of old fantasies, myths, poems, delusions, cruel stupidities, half-assed histories, etc. thrown together uncritically by bronze age Jerry Falwells.

Yes, that is exactly what the buy-bull is all about. Unfortunately, the ones drunk on Yeshua juice will refuse to claim that the buy-bull is the word of god or mans word guided by god. How do thy know Jesus without having some knowledge of the buy-bull? The Holy Spirit! Bahahaha

Redskin in Canada wrote:I do not understand this infatuation about arguments about any proof on the existence of God.

To me, gentlemen, it is quite simple:

I have seen EVIL. I have seen some of the worst forms of EVIL. There is a lot of bad work done by the BEAST around the World.

Once you witness EVIL beyond your worst nightmares, you know there is a God to win the battle on your side.

I do not expect everybody or most to understand me. But if you do, it is enough for me.

Good stuff RIC but unfortunately the proof will not be seen unless there is a belief.

I know how it works for me, but it is different for everyone.

I could give examples for me but that wont help anyone else, nor do I think I should.

I understand and respect your emotional response to evil, but a logical response to evil beyond worse nightmares would be to doubt the existence of God, who should be able and willing to keep evil in check. After Auschwitz, there can be no such God.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I do not understand this infatuation about arguments about any proof on the existence of God.

To me, gentlemen, it is quite simple:

I have seen EVIL. I have seen some of the worst forms of EVIL. There is a lot of bad work done by the BEAST around the World.

Once you witness EVIL beyond your worst nightmares, you know there is a God to win the battle on your side.

I do not expect everybody or most to understand me. But if you do, it is enough for me.

Good stuff RIC but unfortunately the proof will not be seen unless there is a belief.

I know how it works for me, but it is different for everyone.

I could give examples for me but that wont help anyone else, nor do I think I should.

I understand and respect your emotional response to evil, but a logical response to evil beyond worse nightmares would be to doubt the existence of God, who should be able and willing to keep evil in check. After Auschwitz, there can be no such God.

If an all powerful god sits by and watches unimaginable evil take place, then what makes him god? Isn't such a being supposed to be all loving? How can an all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent god sit on the sideline while such atrocities take place? The answer: It most likely doesn't exist.

Cappster wrote:How can an all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent god sit on the sideline while such atrocities take place? The answer: It most likely doesn't exist.

I think your question provides just the opposite answer. Because God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent, you can't question why He does what He does because you have no perspective on the big picture like He does.

On a related, but different subject: Do you believe that a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and was crucified? Not asking if you believe he was God, the son of God, a prophet, performed miracles, or anything else. Did the man exist, or is he a work of fiction?

crazyhorse1 wrote:I understand and respect your emotional response to evil, but a logical response to evil beyond worse nightmares would be to doubt the existence of God, who should be able and willing to keep evil in check. After Auschwitz, there can be no such God.

There is no attempt to inspire an "emotional" response to evil. But if evil in all of its forms does not prove the struggle between good and evil within each person's heart and mind, nothing will.

The fact that we can say freely now that there was an Auschwitz then is proof of one victory of good versus evil and God versus the Beast. I have not visited Auschwitz. But I had an opportunity to review the evidence put forward against some members of the Kmher Rouge in the Cambodia Tribunal. That evidence suffices to me.

Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans over the last decade. Stay away from football operations !!!

Cappster wrote:How can an all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent god sit on the sideline while such atrocities take place? The answer: It most likely doesn't exist.

I think your question provides just the opposite answer. Because God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent, you can't question why He does what He does because you have no perspective on the big picture like He does.

On a related, but different subject: Do you believe that a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and was crucified? Not asking if you believe he was God, the son of God, a prophet, performed miracles, or anything else. Did the man exist, or is he a work of fiction?

If we were to judge morality by the notion of whatever god commands being good then there is no such thing as morality, because the almighty can change the rules as it sees fit. An all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent god watching while an eight year old gets brutally raped and murdered is not someone I would worship nor consider to be an all loving god.

I don't know if Jesus ever existed. It is possible that some guy named Jesus/Joshua/Yeshuah was sacrificed on a cross as it was quite common for the Romans to perform crucifictions. The story of Jesus does sound a lot like that of other mythical gods/saviors that existed before his story was presented to the world. If it weren't for the Roman Emperor Constantine, the story of Jesus could have been just another fable placed on the bookshelves of all other mythological beings.

Cappster wrote:If it weren't for the Roman Emperor Constantine, the story of Jesus could have been just another fable placed on the bookshelves of all other mythological beings.

Yes, but doesn't Constantine's proximity to Jesus, in history, just lend creedence to his existence, not to mention all the ancient documents about him?

Constantine didn't become emperor until 300 years after the alleged death of Christ. I am not sure how the two are associated other than Jesus was allegedly killed by Romans and Constantine was a Roman.

Cappster wrote:If it weren't for the Roman Emperor Constantine, the story of Jesus could have been just another fable placed on the bookshelves of all other mythological beings.

Yes, but doesn't Constantine's proximity to Jesus, in history, just lend creedence to his existence, not to mention all the ancient documents about him?

Constantine didn't become emperor until 300 years after the alleged death of Christ. I am not sure how the two are associated other than Jesus was allegedly killed by Romans and Constantine was a Roman.

Well, 300 years removed is a lot better than 2000 years removed. And the point still remains, clearly Constantine believed a man named Jesus existed. I think it is much more likely that Jesus existed, than that he is a work of fiction that people just seemed to buy into.

It seems likely that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who followed John the Baptist and who became a leader after John was killed

- there are several mentions in Flavius Josephus of followers of Jesus of Nazareth. None friendly: Josephus disliked them

- Josephus mentions John the Baptist, who was a popular "preacher" with a considerable following

- Josephus mentions that one of the rulers -- either a Roman governor or Roman puppet -- executed "James the Just", leader of the church in Jerusalem and brother of Jesus. (Not James the son of Zebedee, who was a Galilee fisherman and brother of John, "the beloved disciple"

None of this proves that Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate, but it seems likely that he lived, preached, had followers, was executed by the Romans (it was illegal for any but the Romans to crucify someone), and that the followers stuck together in a community that eventually called itself a church.

Deadskins wrote:Well, 300 years removed is a lot better than 2000 years removed. And the point still remains, clearly Constantine believed a man named Jesus existed. I think it is much more likely that Jesus existed, than that he is a work of fiction that people just seemed to buy into.

A man named Jesus existing at the time of the supposed "King of Kings" really does nothing to prove that he is the Demigod of Yahweh and the savior of mankind. Jesus, himself, the person may not have been a fable, but his miracles are fables which is nothing new to the long lineage of mythological beings.

Cappster wrote:Jesus, himself, the person may not have been a fable, but his miracles are fables which is nothing new to the long lineage of mythological beings.

Acutually it would be. He would be the first of those "mythological beings" to actually be an historically documented person.

Just so I understand, you say his miracles are fables, so how do you account for this one person in all of recorded history, having so many "miracle fables" attributed to him? Why are many of these "miracle fables" commonly described by several different authors? Was he a magician? Did he perform some sort of tricks that were misinterperated as miracles? Why would he have challenged the establishment the way he did, knowing that it would ultimately have to lead to some form of punishment, be it death, flogging, or something else? Did he have a death wish? Was he crazy? Did he want to overthrow the Roman empire's control of his people? Why did John the Baptist acquiesce to Jesus' authority? Was he in cahoots with John the Baptist?